RANJIT KUMAR ROY Vs. TRIPURA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A clear understanding of the concept of seniority-cum-merit vis-a-vis merit-cum-seniority lies at the root of the present two writ petitions made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. These writ petitions put to challenge the legality of the procedure for promotion of officers from scale-I to scale-II and scale-II to scale-III in Tripura Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent Bank') as prescribed by Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1988 (in short, 'the 1988 Rules'). With the help of WP(C) No. 449/2003, which was prior in point of time, the petitioners had put to challenge the procedure for promotion from scale-I to scale-II as contained in the circular, dated 18.03.2002, and the promotion of the private respondents, on ad hoc basis, by the office order, dated 04.11.2003. With the help of their later writ petition, which has given rise to WP(C) No. 308/2009, the petitioners have put to challenge the procedure chosen by the respondent Bank for promotion from scale-II to scale-III as contained in the circular, dated 29.09.2009.

(2.) We have heard Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned counsel, for the petitioners, and Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel, for the private respondents. We have also heard Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel, for the respondent Bank.

(3.) The facts, which are not really in dispute, may, in brief, be set out as under: